Indigenous Knowledge Systems and lived experiences are essential components of climate action

First Nations, Inuit and Métis have always relied on our own knowledge systems to understand the world around us. This includes our own reasons for inquiry, modes of inquiry, languages of inquiry, ways of knowing, ways of analyzing, and ways of sharing and mobilizing knowledge. The use of the term “systems,” rather than simply “knowledge”, acknowledges the educational, historical, governance and legal structures that exist in Indigenous societies, gives rise to knowledge, and ensures its functionality and continuity (McGregor, 2021). Indigenous Knowledge is not merely a body of information, but rather encompasses all of the systems that generate, govern, manage, analyze, maintain, apply and transmit knowledge (Huntington, 2011; McGregor, 2004).

Although there is much knowledge being generated about Indigenous Peoples and climate change, little is led by Indigenous Peoples, which prioritizes our own knowledge systems, languages, values and experiences. A global assessment of Indigenous engagement in climate research found that 87% of studies pertaining to Indigenous Peoples use an extractive model (David-Chavez and Gavin, 2018). In Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Métis are actively pushing for changes in research governance processes, which is leading to emerging dialogues on self-determination in research—including the need for control over how research is carried out and ensuring that research partnerships reflect Indigenous priorities and build Indigenous research capacities (Perrin et al., 2021; Asselin and Basile, 2018; ITK, 2018). There is a great need to strengthen relationships and understanding between Indigenous and western science, and to find frameworks to meaningfully include Indigenous ways of knowing within decision-making policy and processes (Yua et al., 2022). Now is the time to move beyond inclusion. Indigenous Peoples have our own methods, decision-making processes and systems, and we are experts within those systems. These systems should be respected, acknowledged, supported and implemented.

A worldview is a belief system that shapes a person’s values, perceptions and actions. Although there are many ways to perceive or interpret the world and environment (Guba and Lincoln, 1994), colonial forces and associated power imbalances often prioritize certain worldviews and knowledge systems like Western or Eurocentric paradigms over others (Reid et al., 2021; McGrath, 2018). Indigenous Peoples have developed knowledge systems over millennia that understand how to live adaptively with the environment, leading to strong adaptive capacities throughout history (Kimmerer, 2018). Indigenous Knowledge Systems are place-based (Aikenhead and Michell, 2011) and defined as “cumulative bodies of knowledge, practice and belief evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings including humans with one another and with their environment” (Berkes, 1999, p. 154). These systems are evolving over time in a living process that continues to this day (Yua et al., 2022, p. 33). Reflecting memories and knowledges through living heritages, Indigenous Knowledge Systems develop through stories, lessons, practice and extensive histories, enabling well-organized abilities to adapt to seasonal and inter-annual environmental changes since time immemorial (see Case Story 5; Thompson et al., 2019; Chisholm Hatfield et al., 2018; Makondo and Thomas, 2018; Whyte, 2017b; Alessa et al., 2016).

While Indigenous Knowledge Systems are diverse, Indigenous worldviews share many philosophical and spiritual underpinnings that guide relationships with the natural world and are centered in environmental sustainability (Simpson, 2000; Whyte, 2018). Indigenous Knowledge Systems consist of cultural frameworks of respect, reciprocity and responsibility (Pierotti and Wildcat, 2000; Kimmerer, 1998) and “original instructions” for caring for and relating to the Land (Cajete, 2018). Indigenous philosophies recognize human dependence on the natural world, and Indigenous cultures are often characterized as “cultures of gratitude” (Kimmerer, 2018). These systems understand that our relationships with the natural world must be founded on reciprocity to All Our Relations, human or more-than-human (McGregor, 2018). A common understanding is that all beings, human and more-than-human, are interrelated, and respect for All Our Relations is based on a philosophy of co-existence (McGrath, 2018; Karetak et al., 2017; Aikenhead and Michell, 2011; Bennett and Rowley, 2004).

The current global environmental crisis is predominantly caused by Western relationships with the natural world—a worldview that sees nature as a commodity to be dominated for human benefit (McGregor, 2018). Albert Einstein famously stated, “We can’t solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Similarly, Kimmerer (2018, p. 47) notes that “[Western] science is a superb tool for answering true/false questions but does not have the capacity to address questions of right/wrong.” Many complex issues today lie at the intersection of nature and culture, and leaders, policymakers and scientists acknowledge that Western science alone is insufficient to address them.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems reflect worldviews and ways to interpret the world that are based on incredibly technical methodologies and understandings. Our knowledge systems include deep insights into complex systems such as plants and trees (Kimmerer, 2018), fisheries (Reid et al., 2021), and sea ice (Dawson et al., 2020; Fox Gearheard et al., 2013; Krupnik et al., 2010; Laidler et al., 2008; Laidler and Ikummaq, 2008; Laidler and Elee, 2008). Our Peoples have always observed the environment and monitored conditions using key indicators (Ban et al., 2020; Kourantidou et al., 2020; Ban et al., 2018). This includes the knowledge and experience to provide leadership and rich contributions to documenting and understanding climate change impacts through direct knowledge and insights pertaining to weather, environment, wildlife and habitats, adaptation planning and modelling and through insights and wisdom related to alternate pathways and approaches to sustainable living (see Case Story 4; Case Story 5; Lim, Ɂehdzo Got’ı̨nę Gots’ę Nákedı [Sahtú Renewable Resources Board] and The Pembina Institute, 2014; Turner and Clifton 2009).¹²³

Although western science can describe the natural world, it does not speak to how to live with it (McGregor, 2018). Due to unique and holistic relations with the environment and an understanding of localized seasonal, cyclical and interdependent timing of events such as migrations, hibernations and blooming vegetation, Indigenous Knowledge Systems can identify changes undetected by western science (Chisholm Hatfield et al., 2018; Whyte, 2017a) and can provide more in-depth place-based understandings of changing environments over greater timescales than western scientific methods (Sawatzky et al., 2021; Sawatzky et al., 2020; Huntington, 2011; Gagnon and Berteaux, 2009).

Approaches that braid Indigenous and western ways of knowing in environmental research and management have well-recognized benefits (Johnson et al., 2020; Alexander et al., 2019; Bartlett et al., 2012). Complex environmental issues like climate change can benefit substantially from multiple ways of knowing (see Case Story 6; Cuerrier et al., 2022; Tomaselli et al., 2022; Kimmerer, 2018; Alessa et al., 2016; Cuerrier et al., 2015). A co-produced or braided evidence-based approach supports complementarity of knowledge systems and values, while upholding the integrity of each system and without one being dominant over the other (Yua et al., 2022; Luby et al., 2021; Tengö et al., 2014). Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing) is a concept described by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall as the process of bringing together multiple ways of knowing and a way of seeing from two eyes or lenses—an Indigenous eye or lens, encompassing Indigenous ways of knowing, and a western eye or lens, encompassing western ways of knowing (Bartlett et al., 2012). Indigenous Peoples worldwide have developed similar frameworks or practices of knowledge co-existence, including “Two Row Wampum” or Kaswentha in Haudenosaunee; “Two Ways” or Ganma in Yolngu; “Double‐Canoe” or Waka‐Taurua in Māori (Reid et al., 2021); co-production of knowledge by the Inuit Circumpolar Council; and the qaggiq model of Inuktut knowledge renewal based on late Inuk Elder Mariano Aupilaarjuk’s philosophical thinking (McGrath, 2018; McGrath, 2002). Through Two-Eyed Seeing and other practices for braiding multiple ways of knowing that support an ethic of knowledge co-existence, co-production, inclusive environmental co-research, monitoring, management and governance can be supported, and more holistic perspectives on socioeconomic, political and ecological changes are established (Harper et al., 2021; Reid et al., 2021; Dufour-Beauséjour and Plante Lévesque, 2020; Henri et al., 2020; Reed et al., 2020; Popp et al., 2019, 2020; Levac et al., 2018; Durkalec et al., 2015; Harper et al., 2012; McGregor, 2004).

“A first step towards a decolonized process that supports Indigenous socioecological resilience to climate change is approaching policy change dialogue through an ethical space that equally values and accepts Indigenous Knowledge Systems and ways of knowing”

Including Indigenous Knowledge in research, decision-making and actions must involve a decolonization process (see Case Story 7). A first step towards a decolonized process that supports Indigenous socioecological resilience to climate change is approaching policy change dialogue through an ethical space that equally values and accepts Indigenous Knowledge Systems and ways of knowing (Elliott et al., 2022; Hernandez et al., 2022; Fox et al., 2020; Pedersen et al., 2020; Huntington et al., 2019; Salomon et al., 2019; Elliott et al., 2012; Ermine, 2007). Supporting reconciliation in Canada is imperative, and Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) are beginning to be respected, implemented and prioritized by scientists (Wong et al., 2020). Approaches that balance and remedy existing power relations, uplift unique strengths and respect differences are critically needed (K.J. Wilson et al., 2020; Muller, 2012). We must recognize that our collective responsibility extends beyond collaboratively restoring the Land, Water and systems damaged by climate change to healing our relationships with the Land and Water through honouring covenants of respect, responsibility and reciprocity (Kimmerer, 2018). Together, our collective knowledge systems, values and ways of knowing can transform and restore our relationships with All Our Relations (see Section 5.4.1).

First Nations, Inuit and Métis have had our own methods for observing, monitoring and assessing environmental and climate change since time immemorial. Due to our close relationships with the Land, Water and Ice, knowledge keepers from these groups have a long history of adapting to seasonal and environmental variability through the use of indicators (Lede et al., 2021). However, the rapid pace and magnitude of recent climate changes are challenging our ability to utilize such indicators effectively in assessing environmental changes. Despite these challenges, several programs demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods, including the Haida Gwaii Watchman Program, the Askîy Initiative by the Métis Nation of Alberta (2020) and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s Community-based Monitoring Program (see Figure 6; ICHAP, 2021). These initiatives provide valuable information about environmental health and well-being, support the restoration of traditional governance systems and show how First Nations, Inuit and Métis engage in observational and relational research.

Community-based monitoring initiatives, where Indigenous Peoples and other relevant stakeholders participate in the management and governance of environmental or social phenomena, are one way Indigenous Knowledge Systems are integrated into mainstream environmental governance (Ndeloh Etiendem et al., 2020; Lam et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Danielsen et al., 2014; Danielsen et al., 2009). While there are both benefits and challenges to community-based monitoring (Hovel et al., 2020; Conrad and Hilchey, 2011; Danielsen et al., 2009), its popularity has significantly grown, especially among Indigenous Peoples (Ndeloh Etiendem et al., 2020; Kuokkanen, 2019) and in boreal and Arctic regions (Brunet et al., 2020; Heath and Arragutainaq, 2019; Whyte et al., 2016; Brunet et al., 2014a; Brunet et al., 2014b; Pulsifer et al., 2012).

Indigenous Guardian programs, also known as Rangers or Watchmen, is another example of community-based monitoring growing in popularity (see Case Story 8; Reed et al., 2021a). Indigenous Peoples have increasingly turned to these programs to address specific community needs and concerns related to resource development (Whiteman and Mamen, 2002) and climate change (Lam et al., 2019). Studies on Indigenous community-based monitoring have characterized it as a tool for empowering communities (Danielsen et al., 2009), building trust and credibility among actors (Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2008), monitoring activities on Indigenous Lands and territories (Dehcho First Nations et al., 2016), and supporting cultural revitalization and intergenerational knowledge sharing (Peachey, 2015). However, some scholars have raised concerns about Indigenous community-based monitoring, noting its potential to perpetuate the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples and our knowledge (Reed et al., 2020; Lane and Corbett, 2005), especially when Indigenous Peoples are not directly included in decision-making processes (Conrad and Hilchey, 2011).